17.1 The big interview

The focus here is upon the sequential stages of anticipation, participation and learning from a big viva examination at the end of a doctoral programme.¹ A number of general principles apply – and they can, moreover, be adopted for many parallel cases, such as job interviews, where questions will invariably be asked about original research.

As in any moment of purposive communication, it is important to think not only of pinpointing one’s own big message but simultaneously of making the message fully comprehensible to others. The race to the finishing tape is not waged against any immediate rival in an adjacent lane. It is a solo test. Yet there are race stewards in the form of the examiners, who have the final responsibility of deciding upon a Pass or other alternatives (outlined in section 17.7). In effect, they are deciding whether the campaign to become a historian has succeeded.

Therefore candidates before the interview should aim to be ready with the fine mixture of intense exhilaration and inner calm that top athletes strive to feel at the starting tape.

17.2 Anticipation

Everything that has been discovered, debated and written during the doctoral programme has been in preparation for a final public advocacy in the form of a viva. Hence, in the most obvious way, candidates are already prepared. However, it’s good to anticipate specifically what such an interview will entail.

Before the meeting, examiners will have read the thesis in detail and made a preliminary report, with a provisional recommendation. They are entitled, however, to upgrade (but not downgrade) their verdict in the light of the viva performance. The ‘live’ encounter thus remains crucial. These days it’s very common for the examiners to start by asking the candidate to give a succinct statement of the research aims and outcomes. It’s wise therefore to have a pithy account prepared and ready. It provides a great chance to set the terms of the ensuing discussion. And even if the examiners don’t begin with such a request, it often happens that having such a summary to hand is really helpful.

Before producing an opening statement, it’s essential to reread the thesis or research project in its entirety. It’s particularly important to refresh one’s thoughts if there has been a long gap in time between submission of the thesis and the date of the viva. (These days, there are strict time limits; but even so, sometimes there are unavoidable delays.) When preparing the summary statement, it’s useful, at the same time, to note, calmly and judiciously, the good points of the study – and then to consider, equally calmly and judiciously, where criticisms and challenges might be made. Some authors deeply love everything that they have written; others detest their own prose. A sensible balance works best.

Having noted areas for criticism and challenge, it’s then the moment to think carefully about the best answers to such criticisms. It’s not invariably true that authors are their own best critics. Nonetheless, they can often tell where the shoe pinches. Supervisors or mentors will also help with this process.

Most research students will already have had practice at being interviewed on their work, in the form of the progression or upgrade viva – and quite possibly by giving a seminar paper as well. Such occasions are invaluable. Anyone feeling rusty and uncertain should ask the research supervisor to arrange another practice session. And those who have not previously had such an experience should immediately take steps to gain it. If nothing more formalized is available, even a session of talking to a circle of interested friends is helpful, to gain practice in introducing the main research themes and findings, explaining why they are interesting and important, and answering questions. Of course, there is a nice balance to find between preparation and over-anxiety. The aim, as already noted, is to be ready but simultaneously not agitated.

17.3 The status of the viva

Everywhere, the final vetting of a doctoral thesis is a serious matter. But the formal role of the viva is a matter of some variation between different national academic traditions. Those differences have evolved historically – but are tending to become reduced with the international pooling of qualifications.

In the UK, the viva remains a big pass/fail hurdle. It is conducted in closed session, usually lasting for one and a half or (more commonly) two hours. By contrast, in France the viva is an impressive public event, continuing for some hours, at which candidates are put through their intellectual paces by an august jury of experienced academics. Friends, families and any interested members of the general public are entitled to attend, and many do. In those circumstances, however, the critical vetting has been done beforehand. Hence candidates in France who have failed are not called for a public viva, which, while a challenging event, is a confirmation of success.

Closed vivas play a different, more pedagogic role. They are oral examinations, not public showcases. It is thus not appropriate to invite family and friends to wait immediately outside the room where the viva is being conducted. After the session has ended, all parties need a period of quiet reflection. The examiners may not have announced their verdict immediately – and may ask the candidate to wait outside while they confer. It’s also vital for researchers and supervisors to have a quick debriefing after the viva, and to check on the timetable for corrections and revisions, if any are required. All in all, vivas are tiring occasions, and some time to rest and recover is helpful. Therefore friends and family are best invited to celebrate later in the day – or even on another day entirely.

One protocol which applies in all examination systems is an obvious point of etiquette – but one which bears repeating. Candidates must not attempt to contact or to influence the examiners either directly or indirectly; or to offer a gift or any inducement that might distract them from their academic judgement. Equally obviously, the doctoral research and writing has to be the fruit of the individual historian’s own authentic work. There is a deplorable and semi-hidden world of bogus scholarship and fake credentials.² Shady businesses offer, for a fee, to engage expert strangers to write essays and dissertations for candidates who lack confidence in their own abilities. The doctorate, however, remains a gold standard among degrees. One key function of the viva – whether a public event or closed session – is thus to enable candidates to ‘own’ their big research projects ‘live’ in front of experts. It is a solemn event, because it constitutes the culmination and celebration of great effort.

17.4 Participation

Candidates, who are coming to share their ideas with fellow scholars who are appointed as examiners, should not be obsequious or deferential. The viva is a high-powered research consultancy, where all parties are invited to confer on a substantive piece of research. Hence, it is a mistake, equally, for candidates to display either too much swagger (off-putting) or too much fear (disappointing). In practical terms, dress should be comfortable but not distracting. And body language should signal keen interest throughout. Candidates should thus maintain suitable eye contact with the examiners, while refraining entirely from using mobile phones.

These days, vivas are always conducted in a serious and professional way. They are intense affairs (as are job interviews). As a result, candidates often don’t remember much of the discussion. Some indeed may experience a sharp headache afterwards – often followed by a surge of euphoria, if all has gone well. Those candidates who have the option of inviting the supervisor to attend the viva (not all universities allow this practice) should accept. It provides a friendly witness. The supervisors are not, in most systems, the examiners. And they are not invited to intervene in the procedures. Instead, they sit silently to one side while keeping useful notes. Hence, after the viva, they can advise candidates on how to implement the examiners’ recommendations.

Most of the meeting is taken up by a prolonged and detailed discussion. It covers points both small and large, in something of a barrage. The researcher’s task is to assess the commentary and/or questions, and then to take an instant decision. If the points raised are crucial to the core message, then it’s vital to stand firm, courteously but decisively, and defend the case. The viva, after all, is a core test. If, on the other hand, the criticisms are well made and are not absolutely central, then it’s fine to give way graciously and promise to amend either in a revised thesis or in a subsequent publication. Every moment requires a quick assessment and a suitable response. Candidates are on the spot throughout, which is why vivas are experienced as both exciting and tiring.

Either at the very start of the session (less common these days) or at the very end (becoming the usual practice), the examiners state their verdict. But candidates should put that thought out of their minds. The important thing is to concentrate on the discussion. And nothing but the discussion.

Above all, it’s vital to remember that the examiners have not been asked whether they warm to the candidate; or even whether they agree personally with the core argument and conclusions in a doctoral thesis. Their task is a straightforwardly professional one. Examiners in a history viva are asked to assess whether the thesis has made an original contribution to historical knowledge, which is well argued, well documented and presented to a publishable standard. No more, and no less. The candidate’s task is therefore to concentrate upon fielding their comments/questions and to keep the ball in play. By the way, that maxim provides sound advice for all interviewees everywhere.

17.5 Outcomes

As already noted, it was once more common for examiners to announce their verdict at the very start of the viva. Generally, however, it is considered best to give the candidates a good intellectual workout – and that process is best served by debating in a state of excited suspense. At the end, the examiners may simply confer quickly by a mutual nod of the head. In that case, they can make an immediate announcement. At other times, they ask the candidate to withdraw while they cogitate. The examiners may also make specific suggestions for publication, though they are not required to do so.

Whatever then happens, the best advice for all candidates is to greet the verdict from the examiners with good grace and to extract as positive a result as possible, even in the event of bad news. There are many gradations of results, between Pass with no corrections and Fail without the option of resubmitting. (See list in section 17.7, with suggested responses.) Often there are corrections to be made, whether major or minor. The advice of supervisors is always very helpful at this stage. And then it’s advisable to make corrections as rapidly as possible, to profit from the examiners’ input and to keep momentum.

If, however, there are valid concerns over the conduct of a doctoral viva, it is open to candidates to contest the verdict on procedural grounds. There is always an appeals system. Candidates who are seriously unhappy should immediately write down notes on what went wrong. They should also consult the supervisor, who, if in attendance at the viva, constitutes a crucial witness. And then they can appeal. However, it’s notable that challenges to PhD vivas are very rare; and rarely successful, unless a university has seriously failed to follow its own rules. That’s because, in this age of accountability, examinations are generally conducted with great care, by the book.

Obviously, it’s best to prepare for success. But, if seriously disappointed, then it’s always worth considering what other uses can be made of the research data – for example, in some form of a publication or web presentation. These days there are many diverse outlets. If the journey on the official trackway should hit the buffers, it’s worth seeking positive alternatives instead.

17.6 Summary: progression into the wider world

Passing the viva or finishing a big independently authored research project is a real rite de passage. Researchers are no longer apprentices but have submitted their master-work. (That masculine term is understood in this context to be applicable to all genders.) Successful candidates have joined the ranks of the experienced scholars. A doctorate is a known heavyweight qualification which is admired by academics worldwide as well as generally respected by the wider public. After the results of the viva are declared, it’s definitely time for a deep breath and some suitable celebration. Sadly, most places in the world do not follow the Finnish tradition of presenting a ceremonial sword to successful doctoral candidates. Nonetheless, the achievement is real everywhere. And the exciting next step, as explained in chapter 18, is to tell the wider world.

17.7 Note on the range of viva outcomes (subject to variation between different institutions) and appropriate responses

Pass with award of PhD (or DPhil in Oxbridge nomenclature), with absolutely no changes required.

[Excellent. NB: This verdict is very unusual, as there are often a few minor editing points which require clarification/amendment/correction.]

Pass with award of PhD, subject to minor corrections required within a short period, often three months.

[Very good. The most common result. In response, the required corrections, often seeking clarification or additional documentation, should be made with due care but as much speed as possible.]

Pass with PhD, subject to substantial corrections to rectify errors of substance or omission, to be completed within longer period, usually nine months.

[This verdict gives encouragement that, once the required substantial corrections are made, the thesis will eventually be passed – after a further check, usually undertaken by one designated examiner. There is a question as to how ‘major’ these substantial corrections can be. Examiners cannot ask a candidate to change the core argument of a thesis. But they are entitled to ask for substantial remedial work if the evidence is thin, or poorly presented, or poorly integrated into the general discussion. In such circumstances, candidates should not despair. But they should talk frankly with the supervisor, who will assist in timetabling further research and rewriting within the specified time.]

Reference back, allowing resubmission for PhD, with considerable corrections required within eighteen months, with or without a second viva, with no guarantee that revised version will be passed.

[Initially a very disappointing verdict; but, viewed in the right light, it gives a chance to make the required improvements/corrections and to head off substantial criticisms before the thesis becomes public. Again – candidates should talk things through with the supervisor, and get to work.]

Pass with MPhil – i.e. degree awarded at lower academic level.

[Certainly disappointing; and comparatively rare. Once recovering from the shock, the best response is to be pleased to have gained a valid research qualification, even if not the one desired. It is always possible to challenge the examiners’ decision, but supervisors should be consulted before taking such a step. Certainly big decisions should not be rushed in the shadow of disappointment. There’s no point in wasting time pursuing a will o’ the wisp if there is little chance of making a successful objection.]

Pass with MPhil, subject to either minor or major corrections, to be completed within specified number of months.

[The previous advice applies; candidates should grit their teeth and make the required changes.]

Resubmit for MPhil, with substantial corrections, to be completed within twelve months, with no guarantee that revised version will be passed.

[The previous advice applies, with additional gritting of teeth.]

Fail outright, for both PhD and MPhil, without chance of revising and resubmitting.

[This drastic outcome should not happen, as internal departmental or faculty review processes should have halted the candidacy before getting to the viva. In the rare event of outright failure, candidates should reassess in consultation with the supervisor, and consider what alternative outcomes, including publications and/or web presentations, can be achieved with the research material.]

1. 1  R. Murray, How to Survive Your Viva: Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination (Maidenhead, 2009); V. Trafford and S. Leshem, Stepping Stones to Achieving Your Doctorate: Focusing on Your Viva from the Start (Maidenhead, 2008).

2. 2  Universities, governments and employers worldwide share an interest in detecting and, ideally, halting the spread of fake qualifications. See L. J. Børresen and S. A. Skierven, ‘Detecting fake university degrees in a digital world’, University World News, 14 Sept. 2018: <https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180911120249317> [accessed 30 April 2021].